tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5643342666676162215.post8903450405835334278..comments2023-10-19T10:34:33.030-05:00Comments on Praisegod Barebones: What The Statement Says…What It Doesn't SayBart Barberhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14021102240441576393noreply@blogger.comBlogger34125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5643342666676162215.post-81972603013470627272007-07-12T00:04:00.000-05:002007-07-12T00:04:00.000-05:00Dr. Welty,I believe you are reading more into my s...Dr. Welty,<BR/><BR/>I believe you are reading more into my statement that what I'm actually saying - and perhaps reading more into the EC statement as well. While the EC statement notes that the BFM is not final or a complete statement of our faith, it does say that it is a sufficient guide for our agencies and institutions. I am not saying that no one can draw any Scriptural conclusions Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5643342666676162215.post-80953050524290330012007-07-11T16:20:00.000-05:002007-07-11T16:20:00.000-05:00Paul,You say, "Does that exclude Scriptural wisdom...Paul,<BR/><BR/>You say, "Does that exclude Scriptural wisdom in other areas? Yes, if those are doctrinal areas." I'm sorry, but I just can't accept the idea that trustees are to studiously ignore the wisdom of Scripture in their decision-making, ever. In addition, your position seems to imply that they are to ignore the resolutions the convention passes. So they can't even consult Scripture *or* Greg Weltyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11009322440200137155noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5643342666676162215.post-23995179007206079532007-07-11T15:30:00.000-05:002007-07-11T15:30:00.000-05:00By the way, I missed your parsings of the EC state...By the way, I missed your parsings of the EC statement on Wade's blog (I don't usually have the time to read through all of the comments), but appreciate what you have said here. I will still contend that if both proponents and opponents of the motion can seem to so clearly understand the meaning it is not the statement itself that is lacking. I will grant that it could have been clearer, but Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5643342666676162215.post-6647188956584703612007-07-11T14:38:00.000-05:002007-07-11T14:38:00.000-05:00Dr. Welty,Thank you for your most recent reply (no...Dr. Welty,<BR/><BR/>Thank you for your most recent reply (not that I don't thank you for the others. But I do think this one begins to get us somewhere further down the line than previous discussion - at least in my opinion).<BR/><BR/>Actually, you are correct in how you are understanding the statement, "trustees are not thereby at liberty to establish doctrinal policies based upon their own Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5643342666676162215.post-86750393293062803922007-07-11T12:28:00.000-05:002007-07-11T12:28:00.000-05:00An Apology. Les<A HREF="http://lesliepuryear.blogspot.com/2007/07/apology.html" REL="nofollow">An Apology</A>. <BR/><BR/>LesWriterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07212653606124739664noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5643342666676162215.post-48294333422291130382007-07-10T23:31:00.000-05:002007-07-10T23:31:00.000-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Writerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07212653606124739664noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5643342666676162215.post-78145904746015616202007-07-10T14:58:00.000-05:002007-07-10T14:58:00.000-05:00Les,How does one "take over" Bart's blog by postin...Les,<BR/><BR/>How does one "take over" Bart's blog by posting, umm, one comment a day at most? As for Wade's blog, I booted it from my RSS reader a few days ago. I don't read it anymore. I said goodbye. But even then, it had been a very long time since I had commented. Again, how does one "take over" a blog by posting a few comments? Is this a toggle in the Blogger software I've accidentally Greg Weltyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11009322440200137155noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5643342666676162215.post-32736280670239125962007-07-10T09:36:00.000-05:002007-07-10T09:36:00.000-05:00Les,Since right about here.Les,<BR/><BR/>Since right about <A HREF="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20cor%2012:11&version=49" REL="nofollow">here</A>.Bart Barberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14021102240441576393noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5643342666676162215.post-17210067584728921822007-07-10T08:59:00.000-05:002007-07-10T08:59:00.000-05:00Bart, No. I'd say he is part of the "new" SBTS. :)...Bart, <BR/><BR/>No. I'd say he is part of the "new" SBTS. :)<BR/><BR/>BTW, when did God's ministers become "stars"?<BR/><BR/>LesWriterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07212653606124739664noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5643342666676162215.post-55747614172124317022007-07-10T01:39:00.000-05:002007-07-10T01:39:00.000-05:00To all: Today I traveled out of town to hear Dr. R...To all: Today I traveled out of town to hear Dr. Russ Moore, one of the SBC's brightest stars. Someone asked him point-blank about the meaning of the statement. His view seems to be much closer to mine than to those on the other side of the aisle.<BR/><BR/>Les, is he a part of the "new SWBTS"? :-)Bart Barberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14021102240441576393noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5643342666676162215.post-33000843650177138222007-07-10T01:37:00.000-05:002007-07-10T01:37:00.000-05:00Les,The statement is vague. The ongoing debate is ...Les,<BR/><BR/>The statement is vague. The ongoing debate is tiresome. Without ceding the field, I suppose we must find a way to walk away from it until we have a productive forum in which to pursue it. Our present medium is merely debate with no hope of resolution, right? This is why we have conventions.Bart Barberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14021102240441576393noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5643342666676162215.post-51699481255445188952007-07-10T01:35:00.000-05:002007-07-10T01:35:00.000-05:00Ron P's point is an excellent one. We are in an in...Ron P's point is an excellent one. We are in an intractable debate on this one. I am both tired and nauseated, Ron. Our processes will bring eventual clarity to this issue.Bart Barberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14021102240441576393noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5643342666676162215.post-74393451149206467042007-07-09T22:42:00.000-05:002007-07-09T22:42:00.000-05:00For those who will not follow Debbie's link, here ...For those who will not follow Debbie's link, here is Dr. Page's take on the whole thing. Apparently, he is having trouble understanding Bart and Greg's perspective as well:<BR/><BR/>_________________________________<BR/><BR/>The truth is that the BFM is somewhat like the United States Constitution. It’s interpreted by everyone according to their particular perspective. The resolution is being Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5643342666676162215.post-79244070190002620812007-07-09T21:11:00.000-05:002007-07-09T21:11:00.000-05:00Dr. Welty and Barber: It seems our Convention Pres...Dr. Welty and Barber: It seems our Convention President Frank Page must have misunderstood also. It's any wonder we get anywhere being so ignorant....<BR/><BR/>baptistblog.wordpress.com/2007/06/25/frank-page-unplugged/Debbie Kaufmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17748664558802779885noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5643342666676162215.post-44260446405770064192007-07-09T21:04:00.000-05:002007-07-09T21:04:00.000-05:00Ron, Wade has a practical purpose in mind with his...Ron, <BR/><BR/>Wade has a practical purpose in mind with his posts on this topic. I believe he has stated his purpose. If you missed it, I would recommend you go back and read it again. <BR/><BR/>As for this diatribe, I see no practical purpose stated herein, therefore, my question. <BR/><BR/>LesWriterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07212653606124739664noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5643342666676162215.post-87016853910716793372007-07-09T19:57:00.000-05:002007-07-09T19:57:00.000-05:00Les,You state: "I'm not sure why you insist on bea...Les,<BR/><BR/>You state: "I'm not sure why you insist on beating a dead horse. It's over. The vote's been taken. It is what it is."<BR/><BR/>You must not read Wade's blog.<BR/><BR/>Ron P.Ron Phillips, Sr.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15891614423106717280noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5643342666676162215.post-76032998461140658032007-07-09T19:52:00.000-05:002007-07-09T19:52:00.000-05:00Dr. Welty,So you're telling me that if the SWBTS t...Dr. Welty,<BR/><BR/>So you're telling me that if the SWBTS trustees determined that their understanding of Scripture required a modalistic interpretation it's ok for them to require you to teach that no matter what the "guide" that is the BFM says?<BR/><BR/>As you say: "Amazing."<BR/><BR/>I did not say there was no higher doctrinal authority than the BFM. In fact, I said that the BFM itself Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5643342666676162215.post-50917320520999581162007-07-09T18:12:00.000-05:002007-07-09T18:12:00.000-05:00Greg, I have no problem discussing this issue with...Greg, <BR/><BR/>I have no problem discussing this issue with you sometime. It's obvious you turn and twist comments with which you disagree with a fervor and intensity that is heretofore unseen outside of the "new" SWBTS. <BR/><BR/>Oh, but that's right...you're a part of the "new" SWBTS. As an alumnus of that "used-to-be" great institution, I find your repartee unconvincing and boring. <BR/><BR/>Writerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07212653606124739664noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5643342666676162215.post-40913108688106285022007-07-09T17:26:00.000-05:002007-07-09T17:26:00.000-05:00Brother Bart,Do you think if I made a motion in In...Brother Bart,<BR/><BR/>Do you think if I made a motion in Indianapolis to rescind this motion because of its vagueness or because it violates our constitution by allowing the EC to direct our entities, it would receive a second?<BR/><BR/>Blessings,<BR/>TimTim Rogershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02909751217844312917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5643342666676162215.post-14649483545769079832007-07-09T16:01:00.000-05:002007-07-09T16:01:00.000-05:00Paul says:"The BFM, for instance, gives much more ...Paul says:<BR/><BR/>"The BFM, for instance, gives much more weight to the authority of Scripture than to the authority of the BFM, but trustees are not thereby at liberty to establish doctrinal policies based upon their own interpretation of Scripture and simply say that they are appealing to a higher authority than the BFM."<BR/><BR/>Amazing.<BR/><BR/>So, for trustees, there is no higher Greg Weltyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11009322440200137155noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5643342666676162215.post-92152447961275608782007-07-09T14:49:00.000-05:002007-07-09T14:49:00.000-05:00Bart, I'm not sure why you insist on beating a dea...Bart, <BR/><BR/>I'm not sure why you insist on beating a dead horse. It's over. The vote's been taken. It is what it is. <BR/><BR/>BFM2K is a statement of "agreed-upon" doctrine of the SBC. Not a maximum, not a minimum. Agreed upon. Why is this so hard for you and Jeremy and Greg and Malcom, et al, to understand? <BR/><BR/>For goodness sake, man, even Jeremy Green knew what the motion meant. He Writerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07212653606124739664noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5643342666676162215.post-63911440910644750332007-07-09T11:48:00.000-05:002007-07-09T11:48:00.000-05:00R.L.,That is a good question. I would answer yes,...R.L.,<BR/><BR/>That is a good question. I would answer yes, it would be a violation. The BFM also states clearly that it is neither final nor infallible, though those claims are certainly made for the Scriptures.<BR/><BR/>The BFM is, itself, an <I>interpretive</I> guide. The Scriptures are not an interpretive guide, but are the Scriptures themselves. For trustees to create doctrinal policy Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5643342666676162215.post-79030151710011154072007-07-09T10:29:00.000-05:002007-07-09T10:29:00.000-05:00Paul, if to "be guided by the BFM is, de facto and...Paul, if to "be guided by the BFM is, <I>de facto</I> and by definition to be guided by the Scriptures as well," would trustees making a decision/policy based on their understanding of the Scriptures (but not addressed in the BFM) be a violation (according to your understanding) of the EC/Garner motion passed at San Antonio? Why or why not?R. L. Vaughnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10992710377193518029noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5643342666676162215.post-69471912883139668692007-07-09T10:22:00.000-05:002007-07-09T10:22:00.000-05:00From someone who was at the Convention and partici...From someone who was at the Convention and participated in dozens of conversations, felt the tension, heard the buzz in the hall, listened to the debate, followed this issue for months, wrote a resolution on the subject, spoke to SBC leaders about it, etc., your understanding of the meaning of the motion is quite novel. Why did seminary presidents speak about it the way that they did? When the Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5643342666676162215.post-8045341564899944192007-07-09T10:17:00.000-05:002007-07-09T10:17:00.000-05:00So *can* anyone make a motion to "confine/tame" tr...So *can* anyone make a motion to "confine/tame" trustees to not "add to" BFM? (terms encased in quote not necessarily my opinion or position). I again go back to the point that all controversial trustee decisions should be automatically referred to the convention for endorsement.AndyHigghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05987950156093261915noreply@blogger.com